BHARAT BHUSHAN KUMAR vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL RANGE GURUGRAM AND ANOTHER

PDF · subscribers

CWP/9055/2019HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01042297201920 January 2020Author: MR. JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI,MR. JUSTICE AVNEESH JHINGAN3 pages

AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court disposed of the writ petitions with a direction that no recovery shall be made from the petitioners until the disposal of their appeals by the Commissioner. This decision was based on the concession made by the Revenue's counsel, who acknowledged that the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) had deleted penalties in similar cases for similarly situated assessees. The Revenue also agreed that the appeals would be decided on merits. The Court did not delve into the merits of the pre-deposit demand itself but provided interim relief by staying recovery pending the final decision on the appeals. The principle established is that where the Revenue concedes that a higher appellate authority has ruled in favour of assessees on a similar issue, and agrees to decide appeals on merits, interim recovery can be stayed.

What were the facts?

Four writ petitions were filed by Shri Bharat Bhushan Kumar, Shri Deepak Kumar, Noni Farms Pvt. Ltd., and Shri Aman Sharma. The petitions challenged orders dated 05.03.2019 by the Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-I, Gurgaon, and 18.03.2019 by the Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Gurugram. These orders insisted on a 20% pre-deposit for assessment years 2010-11 to 2015-16. A previous order on 25.11.2018 noted that the impugned notices might need to be withdrawn in light of an ITAT decision on a similar issue. The Revenue sought an adjournment at that time. Today, the Revenue's counsel acknowledged that penalty was deleted by the ITAT for similarly situated assessees.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the insistence on a 20% pre-deposit amount for assessment years 2010-11 to 2015-16 by the Joint Commissioner and Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax is justified, considering a similar issue was decided by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) in favour of similarly situated assessees. Assessee's Contention: The petitioners relied on a decision of the ITAT concerning a similar issue, suggesting the impugned notices might have to be withdrawn. They sought relief based on this precedent. Revenue's Contention: The Revenue's counsel fairly accepted that for a similar issue, penalty had been deleted by the ITAT in the case of similarly situated assessees. The Revenue further stated that the appeal would be decided on merits by the Commissioner, and no recovery would be made until the disposal of the appeal.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

-1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** Date of Decision: 20.01.2020

Shri Bharat Bhushan Kumar Petitioner Versus Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Gurugram and another Respondents

CWP No.9061 of 2019 Shri Deepak Kumar Petitioner Versus Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Gurugram and another Respondents

CWP No.9065 of 2019 Noni Farms Pvt. Ltd. Petitioner Versus Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Gurugram and another Respondents

CWP No.9077 of 2019 Shri Aman Sharma Petitioner Versus Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Gurugram and another Respondents PANKAJ BAWEJA 2020.01.22 09:40 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Ciourt, Chandigarh -2- CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AVNEESH JHINGAN Present: Ms. Radhika Suri, Sr. Advocate with Mr. M.S. Kanda, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Jitin Kohli, Jr. Standing Counsel for the respondents. **** AJAY TEWARI, J (Oral): These four writ petitions have been filed against the order of dated 05.03.2019 passed by the Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-I, Gurgaon and order dated 18.03.2019 passed by the Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax (Central) Gurugram, insisting 20% pre-deposit amount for the assessment year 2010-11 to 2015-16. On 25.11.2018, following order was passed: “Learned senior counsel points out that these impugned notices would have to be withdrawn in view of the decision of a similar issue by the ITAT. Counsel for the respondents seeks an adjournment. Adjourned to 02.12.2019. A photocopy of this order be placed on the files of other connected case(s).” Today, learned counsel for the Revenue has very fairly accepted that for a similar issue, penalty has been deleted by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal in case of similarly situated assessee. In the circumstances, she has also stated that appeal PANKAJ BAWEJA 2020.01.22 09:40 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Ciourt, Chandigarh -3- would be decided by the Commissioner on merits and till the decision of the appeal, no recovery shall be made. Accordingly, the petitions are disposed of with a direction that no recovery shall be made till disposal of the aforesaid appeals. [AJAY TEWARI] JUDGE [AVNEESH JHINGAN] JUDGE January 20, 2020

pankaj baweja

Whether speaking/ reasoned : Yes / No 2. Whether reportable : Yes / No PANKAJ BAWEJA 2020.01.22 09:40 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Ciourt, Chandigarh

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →